Mumbai Court August 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State of Bombay Vs. Amratlal Ambaram Modi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1129
Dixit, J.1. These three appeals raise a common question about the proper construction of the second proviso to Section 22 of the Bombay Finance Act, 1932. It would be enough to state the facts in S.A. No. 253 of 1955 in order to understand the question.2. One Amratlal Ambaram Modi, who is respondent No. 1 to this appeal, purchased on May 21, 1931, certain property comprised in Municipal Census Nos. 2049, 2050 and 2050/1 from the original owner. Amratlal has two brothers, Cbiraanlal and Narandas.Chimanlal is respondent No. 1 to appeal No. 254, while Narandas is respondent No. 1 to appeal No. 255. Like Amratlal,Chimanlal purchased on the same day property comprised in Municipal Census Nos. 2142 and 2142/1 from the original owner, while Narandas purchased on the same day certain property comprised in Municipal Census Nos. 2143 and 2143/1 from the original owner. These properties stood in the municipal records in the names of the respective brothers. Till the year 1947 the UrbanImmoveable ...
The Provincial Transport Services Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR72
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Provincial Transport Services challenging the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, dated July 19, 1957, over-ruling the petitioner's contention that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the application made under Section 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, by respondents Nos. 2 to 4.2. The relevant facts are briefly these : Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Nago Fakira, the husband of respondent No. 4, who is now dead, were in the service of the Provincial Transport Services, Nagpur. An enquiry was held against these three persons on a charge of misconduct. It was found by the General Manager that these persons were guilty of misconduct, He, however, ordered that their services should be terminated by giving each of them one month's salary in lieu of notice. Thereafter, these persons made a joint application to the Assistant...
Devaji Limbaji Vs. Ganpatlal Shivdayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR629
Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant-tenant and it arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, East Berar, Amravati, in Civil Appeal No. 60-A of 1953 which, in its turn, arose out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Yeotmal, in Civil Suit No. 8-A of 1953. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff-landlord. On appeal by the defendant-tenant, the learned District Judge substantially confirmed the decree of the trial Court in so far as it related to the ejectment of the defendant-tenant and dismissed the appeal of the tenant. From that decree the tenant has appealed, and this is that appeal.2. The plaintiff-landlord has filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendant-tenant. The defendant-tenant took survey No, 56 of mouza Yeotmal on lease from the father of the plaintiff for the year 1950-51. The plaintiff contends that the defendant failed to hand over possession of the field on the expiry of th...
Ramachandran (V.) Vs. Air-India International Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1957
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ496Bom
Coyajee, J.1. This is a petition for an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was at all material times a navigator in grade 1 employed by the respondent Corporation, namely, Air-India International Corporation. The respondent, it is alleged, is a body corporate and works under the supervision of Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the Air Corporation Act of 1953.2. The incident from which the complaint arises took place on 6 January 1957. On January 1957 at noon on that day the petitioner grot a ticket to be standby for the trip Bombay-Bangkok and Bombay-Beirut and the aeroplane was to leave that evening at 6-30 p.m.. The petitioner having received this ticket and accepted it, he had to be on duty at a reasonable time before the plane left on that day. On his own showing he went to drop a friend at the Race Course that very afternoon and he says he also went in-Side the Race Course and watched a few races. At the Race Course, accord...
Annasaheb Raghunathrao Bhosle Vs. Syndicate of Nagpore (Umrer Pauni) M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR1244; (1959)ILLJ114Bom
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioners were employed as checkers by respondent 1 which carries on the business of running a stage carriage service in Nagpur and Chanda districts. On 31 May, 1955, Sri Lokre, who was the then chairman of respondent 1, served a notice on each of the checkers individually to the effect that the services of the checkers will not be required from 1 July, 1955, as it was decided to close the checkers' department an from that date. On the same date, respondents 1 to 3 gave another notice under S. 31 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, to the Labour Officer, Labour Commissioner, and the Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Rashtriya Kamgar Union, which in a recognized union under the Act, to the same effect. Eventually, certain conciliation proceedings took place between respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand and the checkers on the other but no conciliation was effected. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3 gave a notice to the checkers terminatin...
State Vs. Poonamchand Gupta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom207; (1957)59BOMLR1165; 1958CriLJ619; ILR1958Bom299
1. This is a reference made by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, recommending that the order of the Special Magistrate, Nagpur dated 18-4-1956, passed in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1949 should be set aside. 2. The circumstances under which that order came to be made may be briefly stated. The non-applicants and several other persons, 48 in number, were prosecuted on charges under sections 120B, 409, 468, 420, 193 and 109 Of the Indian Penal Code for offences alleged to have been committed by them in various places in India between the dates 1-1-45 and 1-4-56. The challan in this much protracted trial was put up before the trying Magistrate, as far back as 16-8-49. At the stage at which the question in dispute arose, the prosecution had examined 232 witnesses before the trying Magistrate who was specially appointed by the former State Government of Madhya Pradesh to try this case. The 222nd witness forthe prosecution was Mr. M.B. Dixit, the handwriting expert on behalf Of the th...
Shree Digvijaysinhji Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. the Collector ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Bom305; (1958)60BOMLR44; 1958CriLJ1007; ILR1958Bom294
K.T. Desai, J. 1. This revision application raises an interesting question as regards the construction of Section 193 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.2. The facts giving rise to this application are briefly these. Shri Digvijaysinhji Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the Company', imported about 275 cases of second-hand looms under one consignment and 175 cases of second-hand textile waste plant machinery under another consignment. The cases were imported at Bedi Port. The Company held licences for import of goods of a lesser value than the value of these consignments. The Customs Collector at Baroda allowed each of the aforesaid consignments to be cleared on the execution of a bond. Thereafter he held that goods in excess of those permitted to be imported had in fact been imported by the Company and that the Company had in the case of each of these consignments contravened the provisions of the Sea Customs Act of 1878. He held that offences under Section 167 (8...
Chandrakant Nagindas Vs. Rami Maganlal Hirabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1957
Reported in: (1957)59BOMLR1098
Dixit, J.1. This application raises a question about the validity of a notice given by the applicant, a landlord, to opponent No. 1, who is his tenant, under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The facts of the case in which the question arises may be shortly stated.2. The land in dispute is a field bearing Survey No. 1431 admeasuring 9 acres 4 gunthas situate in the village of Dholka in the Ahmedabad District. The applicant Chandrakant, a minor, is the owner of the land. On February 5, 1930, one Khushaldas, who was the grandfather of the minor Chandrakant, granted a lease to opponent No. 1 for a period of 25 years. The period of 25 years would expire on February 5, 1955; and this is not disputed. On December 20, 1953, Chandrakant's guardian gave a notice to opponent No. 1 under Section 34 on the allegation that the applicant would want the land for personal cultivation and by the notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from March 31, 1955.3. As the...
Mangilal Narsingdas Vs. Suryabhan Ragho Sawadkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR75
Badkas, J.1. Respondent No. 1 Suryabhan had taken lease of survey No. 136, area 30 acres 1 guntha, for the year 1951-52 from the petitioner Mangilal. Similarly, respondent No. 1 Suryabhan had also taken lease of survey No. 7, area 32 acres 23 gunthas, and survey No. 10, area 31 acres 39 gunthas, from one Ghanashyamdas BalKisan. Survey No. 136 is situated at village Janephal while the other two survey numbers are situated in village Ghat Nandra. Suryabhan thus held 93 acres 62 gunthas of land under lease in the year 1951-52. After the expiry of the lease i.e. by March 31, 1952, the landholder Mangilal, the petitioner, entered into possession of his field survey No. 136. Thereafter on July 8, 1952, the lessee Suryabhan, respondent No. 1, applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 19(2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (XXIV of 1951), hereinafter called the Act, for being placed in possession of survey No. 136 on the ground that he had been dispossessed of...
Daulatsingh Gulabsingh Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1957
Reported in: (1958)60BOMLR104
Mudholkar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by virtue of which respondent No. 4 had been permitted to terminate the lease of the petitioner.2. The relevant facts are briefly these : Survey No. 15 of mauza Umerkhed, taluq Pusad, district Yeotmal, havingan area of 28 acres and 33 gunthas belonged to one Siddi Fakira. Out of this field, he let out 15 acres and 20 gunthas of land to the petitioner under an oral agreement entered into on or about March 21, 1949, for the agricultural year 1951-52. It was contended by the petitioner that by subsequent agreement the petitioner was granted leases for the years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. But these agreements are denied by respondent No. 4 and have been negatived by respondents Nos. 1 to 3.3. By the operation of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, which came into force from November 15, 1951, the petitioner b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »